Most Halo fans (myself included) were nervous when they found out another company was taking up the mantle of telling Master Chief’s story—a story many thought was closed. But after 343 Industries' excellent handling of Halo: Anniversary, I was cautiously optimistic for Halo 4, and thatoptimism paid off with some pretty awesome dividends.

Halo 4 begins right where Halo 3 left off, with Master Chief floating through space in a damaged spaceship with only his borderline insane companion Cortana. After impacting a Covenant ship, Master Chief is jolted awake and once again begins his wholesale slaughter of anything non-human, this time after landing on a Forerunner planet infested with old, sentient Forerunner machines.

With these new enemies come countless new strategies. One enemy resembling a dog from hell made a habit of rushing me while simultaneously shooting me. Other larger enemies (called knights) made a priority of physical attacks while deploying airborne enemies that fired down on me from the sky. With the new enemies, Halo 4 introduces some truly incredible new guns with which to take them out. Though these new weapons mostly fall in to the typical classes (shotgun, sniper, assault rifle), each brings its own unique function to the table. Further, many of the attachments featured in Halo Reach make a return this time around.

At times, throwing a new grenade, deploying a shield, and switching to a shotgun to kill the hellish hounds swarming around me became a bit overwhelming. But this is really the strength of Halo 4. Unlike previous installments in the series, this game doesn’t reward simply rush headlong into battle with a finger planted firmly on the fire trigger. Instead I found myself devising complex battle strategies for each bout. When playing co-op with my friend, we often discussed how to approach a certain situation instead of engaging in unrelated conversations (as we so often did with other Halo games). When defeated, we would analyze the situation and change our approach.

Halo 4's story dragged me in just as much as its gameplay. As a shameless fan of the Halo universe who's read all the books and consumed many other forms of Halo-related media, I was giddy to see where John 117 would go next. Every part of the campaign—from the extensive cut scenes to the drastic increase of dialogue—showed a laser-like dramatic focus that demanded my full attention. For once, I cared about Cortana as a "person," not just as some disembodied lackey.

In previous Halo games, the lion’s share of the story was communicated during gameplay. In Halo 4, the spectacularly voice-acted cut scenes—by far the best looking in the series—do a better job of telling a much more personal story. Watching the emotion on Cortana’s face as she grows impatient with a commanding officer is more delightful than trying to listen for that same emotion while shooting a grunt in the face.

Finally tearing myself away from the campaign after a stellar conclusion to the story, I ventured over to multiplayer to test my mettle against other Spartans. Once more, I was delighted by the changes 343 Industries has made. The game seems to have taken to heart advancements in multiplayer design that have become standard in other first-person shooters. Halo 4’s multiplayer now features loadouts and more in-depth player customization. Leveling up, in a manner familiar to any Call of Duty fan, makes Halo 4 altogether more accessible and enjoyable. I’ve come to expect the ability to adjust my character in between FPS matches to be more competitive, and doing so in a Halo game definitely improves the experience. Being able to pre-set loadouts with attachments like jetpacks and shields adds a new layer of strategy to the multiplayer game as well.

Fans of past Halo games will be happy to note that the addition of loadouts doesn't mean maps no longer include more powerful weapons that give players a definitive advantage. But the effect of these weapons is bit more muted this time around; being the first to the shotgun no longer guarantees victory or ensures a player will dominate a match. The map design is practically a reason to buy the game in and of itself. These are the best maps I've seen in the series and possibly some of the best multiplayer maps I’ve experienced in a first-person shooter, period. Aside from that, matchmaking is smooth, quick, and seamless; even with only a few dozen players online at the time, I was able to get into a balanced match within seconds.

Halo 4 also rounds out the multiplayer experience with the new Spartan Ops mode. Despite the unfortunately derivative moniker, the new mode presents ideas that are new to Halo and, indeed, video games as a whole. Each week, the game offers a new, free downloadable episode combining five co-operative missions integrated with an absolutely jaw-dropping CGI animated short that establishes a storyline foundation. Though brief, each weekly episode offers insight into some interesting side-stories involving the now ubiquitous Spartan soldiers.

These missions each have different objectives, but in most the goal is simple: work together with friends to slaughter every enemy on the screen. Respawns come quickly after dying here, giving the feeling of a multiplayer match rather than a campaign mission, and each mission ends with both a kill-to-death ratio and experience rewards that carry over to your multiplayer character. You can also use the same loadouts you've prepared in multiplayer, or change your character on the fly if you find they're not sufficient for the objectives at hand.

For me, the bar is always extremely high when it comes to Halo games, and I wasn't sure what to expect going in to Halo 4. However, from start to finish, campaign to multiplayer, the game grabbed me by the hand and tugged me along like an excited child at Disneyland. This is a first-person shooter that never lets up or stops presenting engaging content at an unprecedented level. With Halo 4, 343 Industries has finally settled the question of "can someone other than Bungie make good Halo games?" Their answer? A resounding "hell yeah."

The Good

Sparkly new storyline sure to please longtime fans

Influx of weapons and enemies demand more strategy and less mindless shooting

Multiplayer and Spartan Ops are some of the best multiplayer offerings on the market today

I really, really hope this is a good game. I love the Halo games, but if I'm going to be honest they've had as many misses as hits. Halo 1 was damn near perfect, Halo 2 was too much "first you're one person, then you're someone else". Halo 3 should have been good, but felt too much like a multiplayer game that had been shoehorned into a single player game (I only ever play the single player games). Oddly, I'm really, really fond of Halo 3:ODST. Good, tight storyline, enjoyable levels, superb music.

Looking forward to Halo 4

{Edit: I now realise I've confused Halo 3 with Halo Reach. I enjoyed 3, but Reach felt too much like the SP campaign was an afterthought}

What is the load out system like? Are certain weapons locked until a certain stage? That would be an awful backwards step for Halo, making it considerably less accessible, not more - in fact I don't see how a load out system can improve accessibility at all. Being such a huge change to the series, shouldn't this have been described in some detail?

Also how long is the campaign? Does multiplayer have the same massive customisability as before? Can you edit maps? What's so great about the new guns? Is there equipment?

It sounds like you loved the game, but have really failed to communicate why. There's really very little information about the game, particularly changes from previous instalments. This is more of a blog opinion piece than a review.

Has there been any talk of a PC version? Halo 1 and 3 were both my favourite game for years after they came out, but after my 360 red ringed the second time I haven't replaced it, and don't really want to buy another one just for this game (not interested in playing anything else on xbox).

Jonathan Boyd wrote:

It sounds like you loved the game, but have really failed to communicate why. There's really very little information about the game, particularly changes from previous instalments. This is more of a blog opinion piece than a review.

Agreed. I hope this is just an initial brief and a better one is in the works.

As much as I respect the writers at ars personally, I refuse to believe this is a fully un-biased review of the game. If the worst thing about the 4th/5th game in a series like Halo is the naming of these "Spartan Ops", I have to consider that whoever playtested the game didn't delve very deeply.

Again, this is not a jibe at the author, but I feel that someone who was not already fully invested in the series and a clear fan with certain expectations would have been able to deliver a more balanced view of the game, better comparisons to other modern first person shooters (and how H4 does better/worse), as well as a more thorough input on the level, weapon, and character design and integration with the storyline that exists.

So this is a GAME review, the author decided that gushing over the CGI and story for half the article was top priority. Halo gets its sales from the multiplayer; that is the aspect people want to hear positives and negatives about. Well - there are no negatives according to this guy, 10/10.

So this is a GAME review, the author decided that gushing over the CGI and story for half the article was top priority. Halo gets its sales from the multiplayer; that is the aspect people want to hear positives and negatives about. Well - there are no negatives according to this guy, 10/10.

Speaking personally, I don't care about the multiplayer aspect at all. I only ever play the single player campaign, so that's the bit I'm interested in.

I'm a bit concerned that because the author is such a huge fan of the Halo franchise (as he freely admits), he glossed over any negative issues with the game. This review seems a bit too positive, in a fanboy kind of way.

A well articulated piece that reads (and presumably is) essentially a fan review. In some cases (forma) the specialist reviews have been detailed, but I fear this come across too much like a fan and not enough. Like a professional. As others have sttated, its a very well written blog - but we are missing out on the real analytics. The meaty why. Why is the level design great?Why is there more pathos than other games?Why does the good cgi matter?

Being a fan of a series is ok, but pretend every game reviewed is my little pony and nobody has to worry about fan-boying out ever

I just hope my power is restored in time for Tuesday. I will be a sad panda if my copy of Halo 4 arrives and all I can do is thumb through the manual. I've checked out reviews all over the internet and pretty much all of them are saying 343 did a fantastic job with Halo 4. Cannot wait to dive into this game.

How about some critical thinking about how the loadout system influences gameplay instead of the usual "awesomeeeee i get to pick meh gun and ability so i can playz how i wantz!!!!!" A lot of us were hoping they would do away with the system considering what a failure it was in Reach. Sword and shotgun loadouts that promote camping, armor lock and drop shield in objective games - these types of things are a clear detriment to gameplay. Now consider something like Promethean vision - I'd be incredibly surprised if 343i has done ample testing and tweaking to balance the loadouts considering the wealth of new crap that's being thrown into Halo 4.

Are the maps decent at all for 4v4 multi-player? It looks like they're all designed for big team battle.

Praise for a CoD-like leveling system? Bah, what crap. Your level should be a direct reflection of your skill, not something that just accumulates the more you play the game. Pathetic coddling. Many fans begged for the return of a legit ranking system (like H2 and H3) and all O'Connor did was mutter some foolishness about it promoting cheating.

"network code"?? What the hell is that supposed to mean? Do you mean the multiplayer portion? If so, that was still built by Bungie (it was the Halo Reach multiplayer functionality). The Single player, which has nothing to do with the "network", along with the actual maps for multiplayer, were the only part of the game that 343 created. The backbone for the multiplayer was not, so your beef is with Bungie, not 343.

As to this not being a full review, remember, the game isn't out for 5 days, he's probably under a non-disclosure agreement until it officially comes out. I'm sure there will be a full review on Monday night around midnight.

"network code"?? What the hell is that supposed to mean? Do you mean the multiplayer portion? If so, that was still built by Bungie (it was the Halo Reach multiplayer functionality). The Single player, which has nothing to do with the "network", along with the actual maps for multiplayer, were the only part of the game that 343 created. The backbone for the multiplayer was not, so your beef is with Bungie, not 343.

I'm assuming he meant co-op campaign. The network code in Reach multi-player is actually very good, one of the few areas where serious improvements were made.

The multiplayer loadout system needs to be explained better. I'm guessing you can't pick your primary weapon, or else we'd have lobbies full of rockets and snipers. What does leveling up do other than let you pick what your armor and helmet looks like?

I'm almost shocked its getting good reviews. I was worried that this would be the "just another cash in" for the franchise. Now though, hearing the near-unanimous praise its getting, I can't wait to grab my copy.

As to this not being a full review, remember, the game isn't out for 5 days, he's probably under a non-disclosure agreement until it officially comes out. I'm sure there will be a full review on Monday night around midnight.

If that is the case (which does make some sense), I would have hoped for that fact to have been present either at the beginning or the end of the article to put it into context. As it stands (including the title of the article), there's nothing to suggest that.

"network code"?? What the hell is that supposed to mean? Do you mean the multiplayer portion? If so, that was still built by Bungie (it was the Halo Reach multiplayer functionality). The Single player, which has nothing to do with the "network", along with the actual maps for multiplayer, were the only part of the game that 343 created. The backbone for the multiplayer was not, so your beef is with Bungie, not 343.

I'm assuming he meant co-op campaign. The network code in Reach multi-player is actually very good, one of the few areas where serious improvements were made.

I'm assuming that too...What he doesn't know (or completely ignores) is that the netcode for co-op was a bastardization of code crammed into an engine originally meant to only provide co-op via split-screen. The fact that it worked was good enough for me.

I feel that someone who was not already fully invested in the series and a clear fan with certain expectations would have been able to deliver a more balanced view of the game, better comparisons to other modern first person shooters (and how H4 does better/worse), as well as a more thorough input on the level, weapon, and character design and integration with the storyline that exists.

What other FPS can you compare Halo to?

In my opinion, every other FPS is so bad I would rather watch informercials than play them. Halo 1 and 3 are the only FPS's I have ever enjoyed, even though I've played all the major ones (sometimes I even punished myself all the way through to completion on campaign and played many hours of multiplayer, telling myself the game would get better, I did that with Halo 2 for example).

I think the only games this can be compared to are Halo 1 and 3 (and their various sequels of course). He did that, though not with as much depth as I'd like to have seen.

For example comparing Halo to CoD is a total waste of time. That's like comparing Gran Turismo to Mario Cart. Both are good games, but if you enjoy one then you probably hate the other.

I also hate the CoD levelling system. What the levelling system does is put a handicap on the weakest players, the ones who haven't put in the 40 hours necessary to unlock all the guns. When I play XBox 360 with my brothers, I will always choose Halo over CoD just so that we have an even playing field. I want the reason that I died to be that I was too slow on the trigger and not that I haven't unlocked (by getting the necessary 7,000 headshots) the super ammo clip for my stupid gun with iron sights.

Ugh, Leveling up makes the game less accessible, and makes it feel like a grind before I can play the game. BF3 starter weapons were good at least, but the lack of missiles on jets, defib on assault, etc made the first few levels of each class painful to play.

Loadouts takes away what Halo is, the child of UT and Quake. Controlling weapon spawns and getting them is a big part of gameplay. If someone got to the spawn first you adjusted accordingly to take them out.

I feel that someone who was not already fully invested in the series and a clear fan with certain expectations would have been able to deliver a more balanced view of the game, better comparisons to other modern first person shooters (and how H4 does better/worse), as well as a more thorough input on the level, weapon, and character design and integration with the storyline that exists.

What other FPS can you compare Halo to?

In my opinion, every other FPS is so bad I would rather watch informercials than play them. Halo 1 and 3 are the only FPS's I have ever enjoyed, even though I've played all the major ones (sometimes I even punished myself all the way through to completion on campaign and played many hours of multiplayer, telling myself the game would get better, I did that with Halo 2 for example).

I think the only games this can be compared to are Halo 1 and 3 (and their various sequels of course). He did that, though not with as much depth as I'd like to have seen.

For example comparing Halo to CoD is a total waste of time. That's like comparing Gran Turismo to Mario Cart. Both are good games, but if you enjoy one then you probably hate the other.

I'm not certain you grasp the point I was making. How this game separates itself from other modern shooters is important to people (like me) who do not have a long-term vested interest in the series.

Just because you've played every Halo game since release (or a great many of them), does not mean everyone has. A review is supposed to make an unbiased, balanced opinion of a game with references to others, how it does things better or worse than them, and how well it comes together to make a coherent, and enjoyable, experience. Whether you think other FPS are "bad" or not isn't really relevant in this case.

"network code"?? What the hell is that supposed to mean? Do you mean the multiplayer portion? If so, that was still built by Bungie (it was the Halo Reach multiplayer functionality). The Single player, which has nothing to do with the "network", along with the actual maps for multiplayer, were the only part of the game that 343 created. The backbone for the multiplayer was not, so your beef is with Bungie, not 343.

I'm assuming he meant co-op campaign. The network code in Reach multi-player is actually very good, one of the few areas where serious improvements were made.

I'm assuming that too...What he doesn't know (or completely ignores) is that the netcode for co-op was a bastardization of code crammed into an engine originally meant to only provide co-op via split-screen. The fact that it worked was good enough for me.

It didn't work at all for me, completely unplayable. And Reach was great (I never said anything about Reach).

I felt that this article was more of an overview than a actual review. It was shorter and less detailed from what I have come to reading on Ars and was a little disheartened this was not from Kyle Orland. I am looking forward to the game because I cannot stand CoD, and frankly my 360 is collecting dust due to the lack of games that I want to play.

As much as I respect the writers at ars personally, I refuse to believe this is a fully un-biased review of the game. If the worst thing about the 4th/5th game in a series like Halo is the naming of these "Spartan Ops", I have to consider that whoever playtested the game didn't delve very deeply.

Again, this is not a jibe at the author, but I feel that someone who was not already fully invested in the series and a clear fan with certain expectations would have been able to deliver a more balanced view of the game, better comparisons to other modern first person shooters (and how H4 does better/worse), as well as a more thorough input on the level, weapon, and character design and integration with the storyline that exists.

When was the last time you saw reviews released for a game a week before release? I have read reviews on IGN, Gamespot and now Ars. I respect all three of these sites, so I'm fairly stoked about this game!

I'm looking forward to Halo 4, but I was not impressed with Halo Anniversary and how 343 handled it (I would not purchase it again given that choice) - the author's statement about how impressed he was with Halo Anniversary puts the objectiveness of this absolutely glowing review in doubt...

More to the point, it reads how I'd expect it if the author was being payed by Microsoft for this (or trying to please them for some reason) - i.e. 343 (Microsoft) does a better job than Bungie did blah blah blah...it was mindless before and now it takes thinking blah blah blah. Sorry, other than in Steve Balmer's dreams (where he owns the tablet and phone market too), I don't buy that a bit.

I expect something a little more refined from Ars. I'll be getting Halo 4 and have been following Halo since it was being demoed on Macs, before the xBox. The review just doesn't read objectively...JMHO...